Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
Apple Services chief Eddy Cue told the court in the U.S. antitrust case against Google that there was effectively “no price” Microsoft could offer to make Apple preload Bing as Safari’s default search engine. The often-repeated “even if it were free” headline captures the thrust, but it is a paraphrase—not proof of a permanent Apple ban on Bing or a finalized offer to transfer it for nothing.
What Apple said—and what it did not
Cue’s testimony concerned whether Apple would make Bing the default search provider on its devices. He said Google was the only “valid” default option available to Apple at the time and that Apple chose it because it believed Google delivered the best search experience for its users. He also criticized Bing’s investment, search quality and advertising monetization relative to Google’s. The court filing summarizing Cue’s position is the basis for the “no price” formulation.
That is narrower than saying Apple would never use Bing in any product or circumstance. A default search engine, a search tool used for a limited feature, and an engine Apple owns or jointly operates are different decisions. Cue was discussing a proposed replacement for Google as the default, not issuing a timeless policy statement about every possible use of Microsoft technology.
Was Bing actually offered to Apple for free?
Microsoft made a serious approach, but “Microsoft offered Bing for free” compresses several reported possibilities. Microsoft discussed selling Bing to Apple or creating a joint venture involving Bing, as well as making it the default on Apple devices. Those discussions were considered and rejected; the public reporting does not establish a finalized zero-dollar transfer on simple terms. Unsealed court materials described the sale and joint-venture discussions.
#1 Best Overall
- Bing 360 Search: Explore your world in a whole new way with search powered by augmented reality. Get to it from Near Me and Camera Search.
- Music: Now get to songs and lyrics more quickly.
- Browser view: It’s now smoother and simpler than ever getting from Bing search results to the websites you love.
Even a transfer with no purchase price would not make search costless. A search engine needs crawling and indexing systems, data centers, ranking and spam defenses, security, ongoing engineering, and advertising operations. “Free” could also mean no licensing fee, Microsoft subsidizing a placement, or a revenue guarantee—very different arrangements with different costs and risks for Apple.
Why Bing did not look like a better default to Apple
Search quality is part of the product
Apple would be putting its name behind the default users encounter when they search from Safari. If results disappointed them, many would blame Safari or the iPhone experience, not the details of an agreement with Microsoft. Cue’s argument was that a financially attractive deal could not compensate for what Apple considered an inferior user experience. Search quality is not one score: freshness, local results, commercial searches, languages, spam resistance and specialized results can all matter.
The DOJ’s case also highlighted the scale advantage involved. More default queries can provide more interaction data and commercial opportunities, which can help a search engine improve its systems. Google’s scale and investment were part of Apple’s stated comparison; that does not prove Bing is poor for every query or incapable of improving.
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minuteRank #2
- Google search engine.
Revenue per search matters, too
A default provider’s value is not just the amount it promises Apple. Search engines earn advertising revenue from queries, especially commercially valuable ones. Cue said Microsoft’s advertising organization and monetization were weaker than Google’s. If Bing generated less revenue per search, Microsoft would have to offset that gap with payments or other value—and Apple would still have to weigh the experience and operational risks.
Google’s payments to Apple are a major part of the background. Public estimates have put the arrangement above $20 billion a year in later years, but exact contract terms are sealed and estimates vary. Treat that figure as a reported estimate, not a disclosed, uncontested annual payment. Apple’s longstanding default relationship with Google dates to 2002, though the contract terms have changed over time.
Three interests in the same negotiation
Apple’s account was that Google was the best available default for users. Microsoft’s account was different: its executives argued that Apple kept Bing in play as leverage to win better terms from Google, rather than as a likely replacement. The Justice Department’s broader antitrust argument was that default-placement agreements can help entrench Google’s position by directing enormous query volume to it. These are competing perspectives, not interchangeable findings about Apple’s motive. Microsoft’s bargaining-chip argument was reported during the trial; Microsoft also described how default status could reinforce Google’s advantage.
Apple was not a neutral referee. It could benefit from Google’s revenue, from a reliable default that limits user dissatisfaction, and from keeping an alternative bidder in negotiations. It also avoids the cost and complexity of running a global search business. Those incentives can coexist with Cue’s claim that Google offered the better experience.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Why a default is more valuable than an ordinary search option
Most people keep the setting a device ships with. A default therefore sends a provider a steady stream of queries. That traffic can support better measurement, more advertising revenue and further product investment, while making it harder for rivals to reach comparable scale. The cycle can increase the default’s value to Apple and its leverage in negotiations.
But a default is not the same as exclusivity. Users can generally choose another provider in Safari, and they can search through other apps or websites. The menu and providers available depend on device, software version, country and region. Apple’s Safari for Mac support guide explains the setting for Mac; it should not be taken as a universal list for every Apple device or location.
Could Apple build its own search engine instead?
Apple has considered developing search technology, but consideration is not evidence of an active, imminent plan to launch a Google-scale web engine. Building one would require a large, continually refreshed index, global crawling infrastructure, ranking systems, spam defenses and a way to monetize queries. It would also bring privacy, regulatory and operational responsibilities that Apple would have to manage.
Apple already has search-related technologies in areas such as Spotlight, Siri and on-device or app search. Those are not equivalent to owning a complete web index. Nor would Apple need to build a full search engine to reduce Google’s role: it could route certain searches to another provider, offer an AI answer layer, or make a different provider available for a limited feature. Each approach raises separate questions about accuracy, freshness, citations, privacy and commercial bias.
Why later AI-search comments matter
In May 2025, Cue was reported to have said Apple was actively considering AI-powered search engines in Safari. That does not establish that Apple has replaced Google or committed to doing so. It does, however, make a blanket claim that Apple will never use non-Google search technology untenable. The later report concerned exploration of AI search, a different proposition from installing Bing’s traditional web results as Safari’s default.
Best Value
It is reasonable to infer that an AI-mediated search option could give Apple a different way to diversify providers without simply swapping Google’s conventional results for Bing’s. That is an interpretation, not a confirmed Apple product plan. AI search also brings its own trade-offs: answers can be wrong, sources may be incomplete, and freshness and advertising models differ from traditional search.
What Apple users can do
You do not have to accept Google simply because it is Safari’s default. Check Safari’s settings on your device for the available search-engine choices; names and availability vary by software version and region. Changing the default is the direct route if you want a different provider, while visiting a search site or using its app is another option. The existence of alternatives does not erase the influence of the default, but it does mean Apple’s negotiations do not prevent users from choosing for themselves.
The real meaning of “even if it were free”
Apple’s position was not that Bing had no value or could never be used. It was that, at the time of the testimony, Apple did not consider Bing a credible default replacement for Google at any price. A lower acquisition cost would not by itself close the perceived gaps in quality, investment, monetization and user trust—or remove the cost of operating search. The episode is ultimately about the economics and influence of default placement, not a simple verdict that one search engine is always better.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
